Radeon HD 4890 3DMark Performance Revealed

Wednesday, March 18th 2009

Taiwan-based English tech website OC Heaven has disclosed some performance figures of the upcoming ATI Radeon HD 4890 1 GB graphics accelerator. The tests run are two of the most popular synthetic benchmarks: 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark06. Also disclosed, rather verified, are the card's clock speeds as read by ATI Catalyst Control Center and GPU-Z. The test bed, from what the 3DMark06 window shows, consists of an Intel Core i7 920 CPU running at 2.66 GHz, coupled with 3 GB of system memory. In 3DMark06, the HD 4890 accelerator secured a score of 16,096 points, with SM 2.0 score of 6155, HDR/SM 3.0 score of 7521, and CPU score of 4836. In 3DMark Vantage, it secured a score of P10996. Catalyst Control Center reveals the card's memory bandwidth to be 124.8 GB/s, up from the 111 GB/s on its predecessor, the HD 4870. The early driver in use makes provides "RV790" as the device string to GPU-Z.

Update (03/19):Ukrainian website Overclockers.com.ua has come up with a more comprehensive 3DMark shootout between cards in this segment. Radeon HD 4890 and HD 4890 CrossFireX are part of the comparison. The testers used an Intel Q6600 CPU running on an X48 motherboard with 4 GB of memory. The article can be read (Google-translated to English) here.

Sources: OC Heaven, Overclockers.com.ua

posted by btarunr - 3:37 PM | Related News |

User comments

by eidairaman1 (3:40 PM) - Reply

Until Wizzard Tests the board, Im not holding my breath.

by Sasqui (3:40 PM) - Reply

What's a comparible score with a 4870?

by niko084 (3:41 PM) - Reply

by: Sasqui
What's a comparible score with a 4870?

Close to the same..

by alexp999 (3:42 PM) - Reply

That seems a little low. My GTX 260 beats that. :confused:

by TheMailMan78 (3:42 PM) - Reply

Told ya. HD2900 all over again.

by btarunr (3:45 PM) - Reply

I know some of you might want to say that HD4890 is just an overclocked version of HD 4870, but the test results are somewhat convincing. It shows a pretty good improvement in comparison with HD4870. The score on 3DMark06 is very close to GeForce GTX 285, but not on 3DMark Vantage because of the advantage of PhysX that GTX 285 has taken. Will HD4890 be fast enough to compete with GTX 285 in gaming? guess we'll have to see some more test results to be able to tell.

- the tester notes.

by Sasqui (3:45 PM) - Reply

by: TheMailMan78
Told ya. HD2900 all over again.

Yea, but without the VIVO :)

by alexp999 (3:50 PM) - Reply

I get a GPU score of about 10,800 which isnt affected by Physx, I thought the 4870 was capable of more than these results show. The 4890 should be even further ahead.

by eidairaman1 (3:51 PM) - Reply

dont always go by 3DM, as games dont tell lies.

by 1Kurgan1 (3:54 PM) - Reply

by: alexp999
I get a GPU score of about 10,800 which isnt affected by Physx, I thought the 4870 was capable of more than these results show. The 4890 should be even further ahead.

And 8800's score comparable with a 4850, but what do you think does better outside a synthetic benchmark? Don't know about anyone else here, but I play games, I like to benchmark, but end of the day I'd rather play games better.

by alexp999 (4:00 PM) - Reply

by: 1Kurgan1
And 8800's score comparable with a 4850, but what do you think does better outside a synthetic benchmark? Don't know about anyone else here, but I play games, I like to benchmark, but end of the day I'd rather play games better.

I suppose, we need to wait until some gaming benchmarks come out then.

by btarunr (4:08 PM) - Reply

by: alexp999
I get a GPU score of about 10,800

At clock speeds of 576 MHz core/999 MHz memory ? For reference, this the P score GTX 260-192 manages at stock speeds:

Your GTX 260 at 756/1269 can't be used for a making the statement "My GTX 260 beats that.", "my overclocked GTX 260 beats that" sounds legit. Again, I'm not taking into account the differences in the test-beds, drivers, etc. between you and Guru3D :)

by shiny_red_cobra (4:08 PM) - Reply

Actually we need to wait till ATI provides official drivers for this card, as it is not fully supported yet so obviously the scores are a little low. Give it a couple of months and the drivers will improve substantially, and so will the scores.

by ShogoXT (4:09 PM) - Reply

Vantage score stinks as long as Physx is calculated into the CPU score and total score. The 3dmark06 though is promising.... If this card matches the GTX 285, consider them sunk.

by niko084 (4:12 PM) - Reply

by: alexp999
That seems a little low. My GTX 260 beats that. :confused:

You are also clocked to 3.6, that chip is at stock.

by niko084 (4:14 PM) - Reply

by: alexp999
I get a GPU score of about 10,800 which isnt affected by Physx, I thought the 4870 was capable of more than these results show. The 4890 should be even further ahead.

It is take a look- http://hwbot.org/listResults.do?gpuModelId=1361&applicationId=17&filterUser=true&filterBlocked=true&sli=false&limit=100

by OnBoard (4:29 PM) - Reply

Here's my GTX 280 stock clocks. Only GPU scores on both 3DMark06: SM2.0: 6446 SM3.0: 7175 Vantage: GPU: 10924 HD4890 wins on 3DMark06 SM3.0 score but loses on rest. GTX 275 should match it nicely. edit: HD 4890 scores: SM 2.0 score of 6155, HDR/SM 3.0 score of 7521 Vantage: GPU 9801

by ArmoredCavalry (4:32 PM) - Reply

Real world results would be good. :)

by EastCoasthandle (4:34 PM) - Reply

Ah, something is not adding up with the 3Dmark06 results. I overclocked my 4870 to 850/975, using a E8400 at 3.60Ghz and this is my results:

They used a 920 @2.67Ghz in which we all should know by now that 3D06 is cpu bound. The results should have been much higher.

by TheMailMan78 (4:40 PM) - Reply

by: shiny_red_cobra
Actually we need to wait till ATI provides official drivers for this card, as it is not fully supported yet so obviously the scores are a little low. Give it a couple of months and the drivers will improve substantially, and so will the scores.

Screw the card. I need a full frontal shot of your avy.

by Imsochobo (4:43 PM) - Reply

drivers is the same as 4870, with tweaks if theyve altered the core to make it more efficient, everyone knows its based on an better 55NM process, is that all, hope not :P

by alexp999 (4:48 PM) - Reply

All I meant by my card, was that I was comparing a heavily OC'd GTX 260, to effectively a heavily OC'd 4870, so thought they would be closer matched than these results.

by OnBoard (4:58 PM) - Reply

by: EastCoasthandle
Ah, something is not adding up with the 3Dmark06 results. I overclocked my 4870 to 850/975, using a E8400 at 3.60Ghz and this is my results

You are on XP, results are not comparable (XP scores higher). WarEagleAU: EastCoasthandle got 16155 3DMarks SM2:6907 SM3:8525 CPU:3364 on XP

by WarEagleAU (4:58 PM) - Reply

I hate that my work blocks pictures of yalls results. Looks to be a nice little improvement, but ATI needs to get on the Physx deal.

by ShogoXT (5:00 PM) - Reply

by: WarEagleAU
I hate that my work blocks pictures of yalls results. Looks to be a nice little improvement, but ATI needs to get on the Physx deal.

Not really, its only serving to make Nvidia look better in this synthetic benchmark. Is that worth paying Nvidia money for? EDIT: Sorry if that sounded fanboish, just annoyed how that works in Vantage. It screws the score....

Post your own comment

Username:
Password:
Register Here!